What do you lot think of this?
-
You know, there's a good quote that seems to apply here. "Atheism is a religion in the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." This is the same... It's not a matter of believing in the negative. It's a matter of NOT believing in the positive. It doesn't take "belief" or "faith" to see the utter lack of pink elephants flying around my head. It just takes working eyes. Until someone shows me proof of flying pink elephants, I have no reason to believe they exist. Until someone shows me proof of "god", I have no reason to believe that he/she/it exists.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)That would be a good quote, if I was saying atheism is a religion. You have a faith, a belief in something for which you have no proof. There is not proof that god exists, or that god doesn't exist. Lack of evidence in either direction proves only lack of knowledge. There is only one logically consistent answer to the question. Don't know, don't care, or don't know, but care are not beliefs. I know there isn't, that is a belief.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
That would be a good quote, if I was saying atheism is a religion. You have a faith, a belief in something for which you have no proof. There is not proof that god exists, or that god doesn't exist. Lack of evidence in either direction proves only lack of knowledge. There is only one logically consistent answer to the question. Don't know, don't care, or don't know, but care are not beliefs. I know there isn't, that is a belief.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I don't KNOW there isn't. I simply have no reason to believe that there is. It's a numbers game. Given the available evidence, what are the chances of there being pink elephants flying around my head? Given the available evidence, what are the chances of there being some all-powerful invisible overlord in the sky? Both of these are close enough to zero that I seem the probability insignificant, so unless I'm shown new evidence that changes the equation, I assume that neither exist.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I don't KNOW there isn't. I simply have no reason to believe that there is. It's a numbers game. Given the available evidence, what are the chances of there being pink elephants flying around my head? Given the available evidence, what are the chances of there being some all-powerful invisible overlord in the sky? Both of these are close enough to zero that I seem the probability insignificant, so unless I'm shown new evidence that changes the equation, I assume that neither exist.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)That is right. You don't know. You assume. You make a statistical inference. But why do you think the probability is small? Any reason other than you believe it? Lack of any evidence in either side leads to a lack of conclusion. Others look at the statistics, and their personal experience, and make a different inference. My point is that their inference is as supportable by fact as yours. I know what I have is belief, often not as much as I'd like. But I have to to hand it to you. No joke, serious.:thumbsup: I respect that you are willing to say you are making an inference, so many atheists are not. In my memory, which is faltering, I don't remember another, at least online.. And so many people with religious faith are unwilling to be reasonable, as well. I'm not giving ignorance a pass on either side. Well, maybe ignorance, if they are willing to educate themselves. But stupidity definitely gets no pass on either side. It's just easier, in an educated forum, to disagree with atheists. They are either more numerous, or more outspoken. [edit] I said that you said "inference", but you did not. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was talking about a concept, not trying to quote you. I'm more willing to get in a knock-down drag out with atheists. I tend to address non-atheists with a less hostile tone. After all, I may be questioning their religion. I can't question the religion of an atheist. :laugh: [/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
That is right. You don't know. You assume. You make a statistical inference. But why do you think the probability is small? Any reason other than you believe it? Lack of any evidence in either side leads to a lack of conclusion. Others look at the statistics, and their personal experience, and make a different inference. My point is that their inference is as supportable by fact as yours. I know what I have is belief, often not as much as I'd like. But I have to to hand it to you. No joke, serious.:thumbsup: I respect that you are willing to say you are making an inference, so many atheists are not. In my memory, which is faltering, I don't remember another, at least online.. And so many people with religious faith are unwilling to be reasonable, as well. I'm not giving ignorance a pass on either side. Well, maybe ignorance, if they are willing to educate themselves. But stupidity definitely gets no pass on either side. It's just easier, in an educated forum, to disagree with atheists. They are either more numerous, or more outspoken. [edit] I said that you said "inference", but you did not. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was talking about a concept, not trying to quote you. I'm more willing to get in a knock-down drag out with atheists. I tend to address non-atheists with a less hostile tone. After all, I may be questioning their religion. I can't question the religion of an atheist. :laugh: [/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is right. You don't know. You assume. You make a statistical inference. But why do you think the probability is small? Any reason other than you believe it? Lack of any evidence in either side leads to a lack of conclusion. Others look at the statistics, and their personal experience, and make a different inference. My point is that their inference is as supportable by fact as yours.
So if someone on LSD sees pink elephants flying around their head, do we consider that as factual evidence to the existence of said elephants? The timing of this is kind of funny, as I just finished jury service on a criminal trial. Spent an entire afternoon digging through evidence and debating with the other jurors. With a case like this, you have to look at the evidence on either side, and consider its credibility... On the side of religion, you have a 2000-year-old storybook, along with people who claim enlightenment but have no evidence to back up their claims. On the other side, we have a similar period of scientific advancement, that contradicts that book on numerous points. Each contradiction damages the credibility of the book, just as a witness testimony would seem less reliable if they were caught in a lie. Now, I referred to that credibility as a statistical likelihood, and it's pretty much the same thing... Maybe this is a better analogy though.
RichardM1 wrote:
It's just easier, in an educated forum, to disagree with atheists. They are either more numerous, or more outspoken.
Hard to tell which... I've noticed surveys that show an increasing atheist population worldwide, but I wonder what the breakdown is on a geek forum.
RichardM1 wrote:
I said that you said "inference", but you did not. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was talking about a concept, not trying to quote you.
Understood :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
That is right. You don't know. You assume. You make a statistical inference. But why do you think the probability is small? Any reason other than you believe it? Lack of any evidence in either side leads to a lack of conclusion. Others look at the statistics, and their personal experience, and make a different inference. My point is that their inference is as supportable by fact as yours.
So if someone on LSD sees pink elephants flying around their head, do we consider that as factual evidence to the existence of said elephants? The timing of this is kind of funny, as I just finished jury service on a criminal trial. Spent an entire afternoon digging through evidence and debating with the other jurors. With a case like this, you have to look at the evidence on either side, and consider its credibility... On the side of religion, you have a 2000-year-old storybook, along with people who claim enlightenment but have no evidence to back up their claims. On the other side, we have a similar period of scientific advancement, that contradicts that book on numerous points. Each contradiction damages the credibility of the book, just as a witness testimony would seem less reliable if they were caught in a lie. Now, I referred to that credibility as a statistical likelihood, and it's pretty much the same thing... Maybe this is a better analogy though.
RichardM1 wrote:
It's just easier, in an educated forum, to disagree with atheists. They are either more numerous, or more outspoken.
Hard to tell which... I've noticed surveys that show an increasing atheist population worldwide, but I wonder what the breakdown is on a geek forum.
RichardM1 wrote:
I said that you said "inference", but you did not. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was talking about a concept, not trying to quote you.
Understood :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)does this explain why I say "no evidence = no conclusion" in a reasonable way?[tl;dr]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
On the side of religion, you have a 2000-year-old storybook, along with people who claim enlightenment but have no evidence to back up their claims.
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad. :-D There is a lot more going on here than we can detect and measure, per string, superstring and other theories generalized into M-theory. LQG maybe only needs 4 dimensions, but doesn't seem to prohibit being embedded in higher dimensions, possibly into M-theory. There are some theoretical reasons to believe the universe is a 4D object embedded in higher space, and no experimental reason to think there is not. Other than not detecting the other dimensions, though I understand (not really) that is not considered a pattern breaker. too simple explanation The surface of a piece of paper is like a 2D+time universe. You peel two pieces of paper apart, and the surface sort of comes into being. You can draw things into being, draw them somewhere else to move them, erase them out of being. Glue another piece of paper on top of it and the surface ceases to exist. The surface is a 2D+T object embedded in our 3D+T universe. You exist outside of the object, but you can effect it. By peeling paper apart, you create the surface, create stuff in it, remove things, destroy it. That is pretty random, as in no rules. Instead of drawing by hand, you have a bunch of overlapping Spirographs, drawing according to the gears, and erasing after themselves, bouncing off each other, etc. Laws of physics. I'm coming up with this rules/laws analogy on the fly, so bare with me, the Spirograph idea just came to me in a flash of divine inspiration :) . I may not be explaining it well. If you think the explanation is hosed, as opposed to what I am trying to explain, let me know. I know you will tell me about the 'what'. The paper, wet it and stick it to you forehead, and you have omnipresence! ;P The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3
-
does this explain why I say "no evidence = no conclusion" in a reasonable way?[tl;dr]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
On the side of religion, you have a 2000-year-old storybook, along with people who claim enlightenment but have no evidence to back up their claims.
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad. :-D There is a lot more going on here than we can detect and measure, per string, superstring and other theories generalized into M-theory. LQG maybe only needs 4 dimensions, but doesn't seem to prohibit being embedded in higher dimensions, possibly into M-theory. There are some theoretical reasons to believe the universe is a 4D object embedded in higher space, and no experimental reason to think there is not. Other than not detecting the other dimensions, though I understand (not really) that is not considered a pattern breaker. too simple explanation The surface of a piece of paper is like a 2D+time universe. You peel two pieces of paper apart, and the surface sort of comes into being. You can draw things into being, draw them somewhere else to move them, erase them out of being. Glue another piece of paper on top of it and the surface ceases to exist. The surface is a 2D+T object embedded in our 3D+T universe. You exist outside of the object, but you can effect it. By peeling paper apart, you create the surface, create stuff in it, remove things, destroy it. That is pretty random, as in no rules. Instead of drawing by hand, you have a bunch of overlapping Spirographs, drawing according to the gears, and erasing after themselves, bouncing off each other, etc. Laws of physics. I'm coming up with this rules/laws analogy on the fly, so bare with me, the Spirograph idea just came to me in a flash of divine inspiration :) . I may not be explaining it well. If you think the explanation is hosed, as opposed to what I am trying to explain, let me know. I know you will tell me about the 'what'. The paper, wet it and stick it to you forehead, and you have omnipresence! ;P The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The real trick, of course, is that the whole "You can't disprove it" argument is worthless, because aside from pure mathematics, you can't prove a negative.
Oh, come on. In fact, you can prove a negative, even in the real world. By its nature, you can't prove that you can't prove a negative. Proving it proves a negative, which disproves itself. I can prove that I can prove a negative: Make positive conjecture that can only be true when the negative is true. Prove the positive. The negative is proved if the positive is proved. negative....Prove tigers are not eating my arm. positive....if the skin on my arms is intact, no tigers can be eating my arm. proof........Skin on my arm is intact, therefore no tigers are eating my arm There aren't even tigers in this room. But in your house, not only is there no proof the tiger isn't eating your arm, you can't even prove you can't prove it. <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving\_a\_negative\_is\_it\_really\_impossible.html">Whenever we find a positive statement to be true, an infinite number of negatives are also proven simultaneously. Determining that the sun is a ball of Hydrogen automatically rules out the possibility of the sun being made of Cheese Whiz or the souls of flushed gold fish. These things are 'proven false' when the one idea is proven true.</a>[<a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving\_a\_negative\_is\_it\_really\_impossible.html" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] If I might quote that famous non-theist, Carl Sagan <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_proof">"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_proof" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Sagan">"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Sagan" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] You are pulling the kind of argument atheists bitch about theists pulling. I got to get some sleep, I've got an early morning, and it already is early I'm gonna have to school you on the rest of your post tomorrow. :) :zzz: [edit I had my wording wrong: true for false, disproved for proved, vice versa for both. cleaned up unclear wording and syntax written too late at night. If you got email notification of t
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The real trick, of course, is that the whole "You can't disprove it" argument is worthless, because aside from pure mathematics, you can't prove a negative.
Oh, come on. In fact, you can prove a negative, even in the real world. By its nature, you can't prove that you can't prove a negative. Proving it proves a negative, which disproves itself. I can prove that I can prove a negative: Make positive conjecture that can only be true when the negative is true. Prove the positive. The negative is proved if the positive is proved. negative....Prove tigers are not eating my arm. positive....if the skin on my arms is intact, no tigers can be eating my arm. proof........Skin on my arm is intact, therefore no tigers are eating my arm There aren't even tigers in this room. But in your house, not only is there no proof the tiger isn't eating your arm, you can't even prove you can't prove it. <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving\_a\_negative\_is\_it\_really\_impossible.html">Whenever we find a positive statement to be true, an infinite number of negatives are also proven simultaneously. Determining that the sun is a ball of Hydrogen automatically rules out the possibility of the sun being made of Cheese Whiz or the souls of flushed gold fish. These things are 'proven false' when the one idea is proven true.</a>[<a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving\_a\_negative\_is\_it\_really\_impossible.html" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] If I might quote that famous non-theist, Carl Sagan <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_proof">"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_proof" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Sagan">"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Sagan" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] You are pulling the kind of argument atheists bitch about theists pulling. I got to get some sleep, I've got an early morning, and it already is early I'm gonna have to school you on the rest of your post tomorrow. :) :zzz: [edit I had my wording wrong: true for false, disproved for proved, vice versa for both. cleaned up unclear wording and syntax written too late at night. If you got email notification of t
RichardM1 wrote:
negative....Prove tigers are not eating my arm. positive....if the skin on my arms is intact, no tigers can be eating my arm. proof........Skin on my arm is intact, therefore no tigers are eating my arm
Well, obviously it's an invisible, microscopic tiger, so the puncture wounds are so small that you can't see them with the naked eye :) OR The skin on your arms only LOOKS like it's intact, because the invisible tiger is using an illusion spell combined with a local anesthetic... (Of course, that one is going to get REALLY ridiculous REALLY fast). That's how the "god" argument works... "No, he's invisible, and in a place you can't see... Yeah, those dinosaur bones aren't proof, because he magically put them there... etc etc." So I'll clarify... You can't prove the negative if the parameters aren't rigidly defined.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's how the "god" argument works... "No, he's invisible, and in a place you can't see... Yeah, those dinosaur bones aren't proof, because he magically put them there... etc etc."
Are those the arguments I'm using, or are you arguing with someone else? I'm good if you want to argue with them, but can you do it in that thread? I'm not arguing any of those things with you, I am arguing logic. You are making an unsupportable claim. A claim with no evidence. You make the claim, you must prove it. You haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So I'll clarify... You can't prove the negative if the parameters aren't rigidly defined.
So I have clarity... Can you prove anything, positive or negative, if the definition can change? In the phrase "the sun is not a ball of kumquats", can I substitute anything for kumquats, as long as it isn't hydrogen? What do you know? Looks like a non-rigidly defined parameter in a negative argument. But you did re-frame it nicely: Why are you sure there is no 'god', when you don't know what 'god' is? Are you saying if you can't conceive it, or it isn't well defined in your head, it can't exist? Please explain how you move something from the 'can't exist' category to the 'can exist' one, based on a description you understand. If you are able to understand it at some times, but not others, does it phase in and out of existence? Can we rid the world of hunger, just by making you not understand it?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's how the "god" argument works... "No, he's invisible, and in a place you can't see... Yeah, those dinosaur bones aren't proof, because he magically put them there... etc etc."
Are those the arguments I'm using, or are you arguing with someone else? I'm good if you want to argue with them, but can you do it in that thread? I'm not arguing any of those things with you, I am arguing logic. You are making an unsupportable claim. A claim with no evidence. You make the claim, you must prove it. You haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So I'll clarify... You can't prove the negative if the parameters aren't rigidly defined.
So I have clarity... Can you prove anything, positive or negative, if the definition can change? In the phrase "the sun is not a ball of kumquats", can I substitute anything for kumquats, as long as it isn't hydrogen? What do you know? Looks like a non-rigidly defined parameter in a negative argument. But you did re-frame it nicely: Why are you sure there is no 'god', when you don't know what 'god' is? Are you saying if you can't conceive it, or it isn't well defined in your head, it can't exist? Please explain how you move something from the 'can't exist' category to the 'can exist' one, based on a description you understand. If you are able to understand it at some times, but not others, does it phase in and out of existence? Can we rid the world of hunger, just by making you not understand it?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm not arguing any of those things with you, I am arguing logic. You are making an unsupportable claim. A claim with no evidence. You make the claim, you must prove it. You haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
My claim is that given what we DO know, non-existence is much more likely than existence, so it's logical to assume non-existence unless new proof arises to the contrary.
RichardM1 wrote:
But you did re-frame it nicely: Why are you sure there is no 'god', when you don't know what 'god' is?
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
[Shakes head] Well, Hawking would be proud you are willing to use it in your fiction. M-theory has been able to give a better frame work for unifying QM and GR than the alternatives. As it turns out, most of the alternatives are special cases of it. So, it's most probably true. By your argument, that makes it truth. Given your "probability of no god" argument, you've proven that there are extra dimensions. But then there is room in these extra dimensions for a god that is a creator of a thing like our universe. 'Proof by probability' doesn't return internally consistent answers, so is unreliable.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
I am not saying any particular god exists. I am saying that a god can exist. We would have no evidence, either for, or against. Your picking at individual cases is like using enumeration of integers in a proof: Have fun doing it, but I'm not holding my breath while you type it up. I'm not making any claims of fact. You are claiming, based on statistics you can't site, that there can't be a god. I'm good with that, as long as you are willing to admit that you believe the statistics support your argument, without knowing them, and that you believe there can't be a god, based on those statistics you don't know.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm not arguing any of those things with you, I am arguing logic. You are making an unsupportable claim. A claim with no evidence. You make the claim, you must prove it. You haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
My claim is that given what we DO know, non-existence is much more likely than existence, so it's logical to assume non-existence unless new proof arises to the contrary.
RichardM1 wrote:
But you did re-frame it nicely: Why are you sure there is no 'god', when you don't know what 'god' is?
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
You are sure, in the sense that you believe it. I'm not 100% sure God exists, but I believe it, and belief without evidence is faith. OK, how do you know these probabilities (not the random numbers) that you are using to infer this? What goes into the the evidence for and evidence against columns that make you assign non-zero probabilities to either? The 99 and 1 were just pulled out, I understand, but what do you base the numbers you do use? There is not evidence available, in either direction. In other words, there is an equal amount of evidence for and against - zero. There is a lot of belief in evidence, for and against, that does not hold up to scrutiny. What facts are there that support no god? [moved from where I put it by mistake]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
You are sure, in the sense that you believe it. I'm not 100% sure God exists, but I believe it, and belief without evidence is faith. OK, how do you know these probabilities (not the random numbers) that you are using to infer this? What goes into the the evidence for and evidence against columns that make you assign non-zero probabilities to either? The 99 and 1 were just pulled out, I understand, but what do you base the numbers you do use? There is not evidence available, in either direction. In other words, there is an equal amount of evidence for and against - zero. There is a lot of belief in evidence, for and against, that does not hold up to scrutiny. What facts are there that support no god? [moved from where I put it by mistake]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
The evidence FOR existence comes from the various religious texts, and the evidence against comes in the form of a trend... R: "He lives in the sky and he created everything and controls everything." S: "Well, we can see into the sky now, and he's not there." R: "Oh, he's invisible." S: "Why can't we detect him with our various technological means?" R: "Because he doesn't want you to." S: "Alright, moving on... He didn't create the Earth. We have geological records that show how it was made." R: "Nope, he made the Earth and the Sun and the heavens and--" S: "No, the Sun was formed by a coalescing cloud of gas thrown off from the big bang, and the Earth was just a little bit of that on the side." R: "But... but he caused that to happen!" The trend is pretty clear... As science advances, "god" retreats from prominence into obscurity... As I see it, "god" is peoples' way of filling in the part we don't know yet, which really kills its credibility.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
The evidence FOR existence comes from the various religious texts, and the evidence against comes in the form of a trend... R: "He lives in the sky and he created everything and controls everything." S: "Well, we can see into the sky now, and he's not there." R: "Oh, he's invisible." S: "Why can't we detect him with our various technological means?" R: "Because he doesn't want you to." S: "Alright, moving on... He didn't create the Earth. We have geological records that show how it was made." R: "Nope, he made the Earth and the Sun and the heavens and--" S: "No, the Sun was formed by a coalescing cloud of gas thrown off from the big bang, and the Earth was just a little bit of that on the side." R: "But... but he caused that to happen!" The trend is pretty clear... As science advances, "god" retreats from prominence into obscurity... As I see it, "god" is peoples' way of filling in the part we don't know yet, which really kills its credibility.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)There are trends that evolve over history that are misinterpreted by both sides for their own reasons. Doctors used to think letting blood (and 57 worse things) was good and good for you. Yet medical understanding has increased. We did not used to think electricity had anything to do with magnetism. Understanding advances. People used to think heaven was above and hell below, but that is not required by scripture. Some theist people are locked into a 'flat earth' view of the universe, as are some atheists. A wrong theist's argument doesn't effect mine anymore than a bigoted atheist's argument effects yours, Right? Or if any atheist is screwed up, you are too? As we know more, we find that God put everything together by defining what we call physical laws, and letting them play out, with some intervention from time to time. He isn't falling into obscurity, we are learning more about how He created the universe, which gives us more insight into Him. You are still only referencing a particular god, not proving the whole issue of whether are not there could be a god. The trend you attempt to wring out of your examples is of wrong people, or even wrong descriptions. Until you prove nothing created the laws that govern the universe, and the created it, you have not excluded all gods. You have to disprove all gods. A positive proof only needs to show one god.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
There are trends that evolve over history that are misinterpreted by both sides for their own reasons. Doctors used to think letting blood (and 57 worse things) was good and good for you. Yet medical understanding has increased. We did not used to think electricity had anything to do with magnetism. Understanding advances. People used to think heaven was above and hell below, but that is not required by scripture. Some theist people are locked into a 'flat earth' view of the universe, as are some atheists. A wrong theist's argument doesn't effect mine anymore than a bigoted atheist's argument effects yours, Right? Or if any atheist is screwed up, you are too? As we know more, we find that God put everything together by defining what we call physical laws, and letting them play out, with some intervention from time to time. He isn't falling into obscurity, we are learning more about how He created the universe, which gives us more insight into Him. You are still only referencing a particular god, not proving the whole issue of whether are not there could be a god. The trend you attempt to wring out of your examples is of wrong people, or even wrong descriptions. Until you prove nothing created the laws that govern the universe, and the created it, you have not excluded all gods. You have to disprove all gods. A positive proof only needs to show one god.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
There are trends that evolve over history that are misinterpreted by both sides for their own reasons. Doctors used to think letting blood (and 57 worse things) was good and good for you. Yet medical understanding has increased. We did not used to think electricity had anything to do with magnetism. Understanding advances. People used to think heaven was above and hell below, but that is not required by scripture.
Those aren't trends. A trend is a gradual change over time.
RichardM1 wrote:
As we know more, we find that God put everything together by defining what we call physical laws, and letting them play out, with some intervention from time to time. He isn't falling into obscurity, we are learning more about how He created the universe, which gives us more insight into Him.
But again, look at the trend... It started with "God created man, animals, plants, etc"... Then Darwin came along, and it became "God created the Earth, and started evolution." But then we learned how the Earth was created, so it became "God created the universe, which let Earth be created, which let evolution start, which created man." See the trend?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
There are trends that evolve over history that are misinterpreted by both sides for their own reasons. Doctors used to think letting blood (and 57 worse things) was good and good for you. Yet medical understanding has increased. We did not used to think electricity had anything to do with magnetism. Understanding advances. People used to think heaven was above and hell below, but that is not required by scripture.
Those aren't trends. A trend is a gradual change over time.
RichardM1 wrote:
As we know more, we find that God put everything together by defining what we call physical laws, and letting them play out, with some intervention from time to time. He isn't falling into obscurity, we are learning more about how He created the universe, which gives us more insight into Him.
But again, look at the trend... It started with "God created man, animals, plants, etc"... Then Darwin came along, and it became "God created the Earth, and started evolution." But then we learned how the Earth was created, so it became "God created the universe, which let Earth be created, which let evolution start, which created man." See the trend?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
See the trend?
You mean the gradual change over time I was talking about? In this case it is called learning, loss of ignorance, greater understanding of God's creation. Of course, there are Luddites everywhere, gosh, even in religions. It takes time for individuals and institution to change. It started out that blacks were considered subhuman, made slaves, subjected to cruelty. Then some (religious)people started thinking that wasn't right, and started agitating for their freedom. Things got ugly, but eventually, they were freed. They had to deal with racism, discrimination, violence. Things slowly got better. The UK was following a path from ignorance to understanding. When the religious deny science, you say they are idiots. When they learn from science, you say they are ... what? Wrong for doing it? :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
See the trend?
You mean the gradual change over time I was talking about? In this case it is called learning, loss of ignorance, greater understanding of God's creation. Of course, there are Luddites everywhere, gosh, even in religions. It takes time for individuals and institution to change. It started out that blacks were considered subhuman, made slaves, subjected to cruelty. Then some (religious)people started thinking that wasn't right, and started agitating for their freedom. Things got ugly, but eventually, they were freed. They had to deal with racism, discrimination, violence. Things slowly got better. The UK was following a path from ignorance to understanding. When the religious deny science, you say they are idiots. When they learn from science, you say they are ... what? Wrong for doing it? :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You mean the gradual change over time I was talking about? In this case it is called learning, loss of ignorance, greater understanding of God's creation.
Yes, learning... Learning more about the universe around us, and leaving less and less room for a "god" to fill in the blanks.
RichardM1 wrote:
It started out that blacks were considered subhuman, made slaves, subjected to cruelty. Then some (religious)people started thinking that wasn't right, and started agitating for their freedom.
What does this have to do with anything?
RichardM1 wrote:
When the religious deny science, you say they are idiots. When they learn from science, you say they are ... what? Wrong for doing it?
Excuse me, did I ever say they were wrong for learning? Learning is always good.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
You mean the gradual change over time I was talking about? In this case it is called learning, loss of ignorance, greater understanding of God's creation.
Yes, learning... Learning more about the universe around us, and leaving less and less room for a "god" to fill in the blanks.
RichardM1 wrote:
It started out that blacks were considered subhuman, made slaves, subjected to cruelty. Then some (religious)people started thinking that wasn't right, and started agitating for their freedom.
What does this have to do with anything?
RichardM1 wrote:
When the religious deny science, you say they are idiots. When they learn from science, you say they are ... what? Wrong for doing it?
Excuse me, did I ever say they were wrong for learning? Learning is always good.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, learning... Learning more about the universe around us, and leaving less and less room for a "god" to fill in the blanks.
I hear/read this, and I don't see it. There was the Newtonian clockwork universe that "leaves God no room to work", but it was wrong. Now there is QM, which gives God as much room to work as anyone could think is needed. Unless you think randomness for which we find no underlying cause would limit God? Penrose thinks consciousness and free will are derived directly from QM, IIRC. Creation was God collapsing a wave function in a low probability outcome. Evolution was driven as God wanted it. That doesn't mean it isn't natural. A cosmic ray here, some mutation there. Could be the "God gene" is pretty much that. At some point, mutation allowed spiritual life. Could be the brain got complex enough for it, or something else. Someone got it first, Adam. Don't know if it happened twice, or if he passed the genes on to Eve, woman from man. We went from thinking Genesis was literal (while other pieces aren't) to understanding God spent little room explaining creation, because the details didn't matter much to the story. Yet I can show good correlation between Genesis and expansionist BB theories (with the exception of when plants are created). Explain for me why you think He is a "God of the cracks", because I don't see it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, learning... Learning more about the universe around us, and leaving less and less room for a "god" to fill in the blanks.
I hear/read this, and I don't see it. There was the Newtonian clockwork universe that "leaves God no room to work", but it was wrong. Now there is QM, which gives God as much room to work as anyone could think is needed. Unless you think randomness for which we find no underlying cause would limit God? Penrose thinks consciousness and free will are derived directly from QM, IIRC. Creation was God collapsing a wave function in a low probability outcome. Evolution was driven as God wanted it. That doesn't mean it isn't natural. A cosmic ray here, some mutation there. Could be the "God gene" is pretty much that. At some point, mutation allowed spiritual life. Could be the brain got complex enough for it, or something else. Someone got it first, Adam. Don't know if it happened twice, or if he passed the genes on to Eve, woman from man. We went from thinking Genesis was literal (while other pieces aren't) to understanding God spent little room explaining creation, because the details didn't matter much to the story. Yet I can show good correlation between Genesis and expansionist BB theories (with the exception of when plants are created). Explain for me why you think He is a "God of the cracks", because I don't see it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
You're still dodging the issue of the trend. I've stated multiple times how the historical trend has been for the alleged influence of "god" to, through reinterpretation, become more and more indirect as we find the REAL answers to the universe around us. The trend is for the "god" answer to become less and less necessary. Sure, we'll never know how the universe came to be, since we have no way of perceiving outside it, but that doesn't mean we have any reason to assign its creation (Assuming it was ever created) to some supernatural being.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)